Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — notice of appeal — timeliness

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 11, 2014//

Civil Procedure — notice of appeal — timeliness

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 11, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — notice of appeal — timeliness

There is no unique circumstances exception for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.

“Moreover, Satkar hasn’t shown that it actually relied on what the district court said. It’s undisputed that Satkar knew the court had entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment on September 21, so it cannot claim to have been genuinely confused when the judge misstated the record a week later. When the judge invited a request for a Rule 54(b) finding on September 27—mistakenly, as Satkar admits it knew at the time—Satkar’s counsel did nothing to correct the court’s misapprehension or otherwise clear up the confusion. The appeal clock was already running, but Satkar let the deadline pass, waiting until after the next status conference to move for an extension of time and blaming its own neglect on confusion supposedly created by the judge.”

“That’s not excusable neglect; it is instead an attempt to seek refuge in a momentary memory lapse by a busy judge juggling a heavy caseload. Satkar points out that waiting until after the appeal deadline has passed to request an extension is not automatically a bar to appeal. That’s true. Rule 4(a)(5) explicitly contemplates a motion for extension of time after the 30- day period has run. And the extension rule is not confined to ‘circumstances beyond the control of the filer.’ Prizevoits, 76 F.3d at 134 (quotation marks omitted) (explaining that ‘plausible misinterpretations’ and ‘“confusion” concerning the scope of the applicable rule’ can constitute excusable neglect in appropriate cases). But an extension of time requires a reason, not just a request for a favorable exercise of discretion. The rule requires excusable neglect, after all—not just plain neglect—and Satkar offered no basis for an extension other than the judge’s mistaken September 27 comment.”

“Because the district court granted an extension of time based on an overruled legal doctrine, and the record supports no other basis for a finding of excusable neglect, Satkar’s notice of appeal was untimely. The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Dismissed.

11-3572 Satkar Hospitality, Inc., v. Fox Television Holdings

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Sykes, J.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests